Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ.
Trust Association of CBCNC – Petitioner
Versus
H.R.R. Constructions Private Limited and Ors. – Respondents
IA 1 of 2021 in First Appeal No. 384/2021
Decided On : 19-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad and P. Sri Ram
For the Respondent: V.V. Ravi Prasad and Pillix Law Firm
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized a liberal approach in evaluating sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.
Headnote:
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application filed to condone delay of 2361 days in filing appeal against judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Petitioner claimed ignorance of the suit and its dismissal until recently - Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in considering sufficient cause for delay - Delay condoned to allow appeal on merits. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 18)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court must balance substantial justice against technical considerations when evaluating delay petitions - The conduct and behavior of the party seeking condonation are relevant factors. (Paras 10, 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as Chairman of the TRUST Association, sought to condone a significant delay in appealing a judgment that dismissed a suit regarding property ownership, claiming he was unaware of the suit's existence until recently.
Findings of Court:
The court found the reasons for delay plausible and emphasized the importance of allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2361 days in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, allowing the delay to be condoned to ensure the appeal is heard on its merits.
Result: Petition allowed; delay condoned.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. The petitioner/appellant/plaintiff filed the instant application U/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 2361 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 11.02.2015 in O.S No. 244/2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. Petitioner's case is thus:
(a) The affidavit holder is the Chairman of petitioner trust. Earlier he was one of the members of Ananda Rao Memorial Baptist Church, Pamulalanka, Krishna District and he was associated with CBCNC. In the election held in the year 2007 at Machilipatnam, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of TRUST Association, CBCNC. Immediately the list of office bearers was submitted to the District Registrar of Assurances, Kakinada. Elections are being conducted once in every five years for electing the members of CBCNC. Accordingly, the elections were held in 2012 at Pedamaddali and in 2017 at Pamulalanka and immediately the list of office bearers was submitted to the District Registrar of Assurances, Kakinada.
(b) The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being the chairman of TRUST Association, has been protecting the properties of the TRUST Association by filing several legal proceedings. For instance, he filed OS 51/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against one M. Nageswara Rao and other for delivery of property. The said suit was decreed on 26.10.2015. Another suit OS No. 342/2011 was filed on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada against one M. Ramesh for delivery of property and it was decreed on 31.10.2015. Aggrieved, the defendants filed AS No. 211/2016 before the common High Court and same is pending. So also OS No. 390/2017 was filed on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada against T. Prasanna Kumar and others seeking declaration that the registered lease deed dated 11.02.2013 was null and void. The said suit was decreed on 21.10.2019. The petitioner, in the like manner filed some other suits and writ petitions to protect the properties of TRUST Association, CBCNC.
(c) So far as OS No. 244/2006 is concerned, it was filed by the then Chairman Dasari Samuel seeking for declaration that the sale transactions covered by Ex.A3 to A16 executed by D15 to D18 in favour of D1 to D14 are without any consideration and they are void and that the plaintiff society is the absolute owner of the properties covered by those sale deeds and that as per the constitution of plaintiff society, the vendors i.e., defendants 15 to 18 have no authority to sell the property without any resolution and no consideration was paid as per the records of the society and possession was not handed over to the purchasers rather the possession was with the plaintiff society. In the said suit defendants 2 to 10, 12, 15 and 16 remained ex-parte and suit against defendant 13 was dismissed. While so, D1, D11, D12 and D14 filed common written statement and D18 filed a separate written statement. During trial Dasari Samuel (Styling himself as Chairman) was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A21 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. One T. Malini Tyagaraj was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to B82 were marked on behalf of defendants. The trial Court on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law dismissed the suit on 11.02.2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein as Chairman of the appellant trust filed the instant appeal.
(d) It is further pleaded that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of the suit by Dasari Samuel or the result thereof till recently. One TDS Kumar claiming himself as Chairman of the TRUST Association of CBCNC filed OS No. 18/2019 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking injunction. In the said suit the petitioner was arrayed as 4th defendant in his individual capacity. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit and also contended that he is the chairman of TRUST Association of CBCNC. After full-fledged trial the s
